It depends on whether it's described in sufficient detail. Robert Heinlein's (written) descriptions of the design of a waterbed were sufficient prior art against Charles Hall's 1968 patent claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stranger_in_a_Strange_Land#Lite...

Of course not, and it bears repeating that this patent doesn't cover any of the underlying technology that makes the iPhone actually work as a phone, it merely covers part of the appearance of the UI, an appearance that any competent programmer can replicate on a whim.

I am contending that you can't patent a user interface you see in a sci-fi movie, which is what Apple did here. What they patented is no different from patenting the way the command module looks on the Enterprise. Do you think that Apple should be able to patent, say, the use of oval icons?

You can patent icons and fonts, why would a user interface be different here? We could revoke the ability to patent icons & fonts, but then there would be no financial motivation for companies to design fonts to sell.

Here's another Star Trek example: if someone creates a wearable badge that was also a cell phone, that you touch to activate, they couldn't patent "touch-to-implement communicator", but they might be able to patent their specific method of detecting the touch.

Of course the inventor can patent the implementation details of a matter transporter, but patenting the idea of a matter transporter, when the idea's been floating around, seems unduly restrictive.

I think for UI elements the standard should be slightly different since a work of fiction can detail the entire thing. So in you example the transporter would be patentable since there no real info on how to make one. However the 3 finger slide gesture they use to activate it shouldn't be since that's the entire thing.

Disclaimer: I'm completely against patenting UI elements. I'm of the opinion that once they come into existence they're language and patenting language is anti-social behavior.